Cultural Appropriation, Fashion, The Royals

 Cultural Appropriation

Othello and Desdemona, 

William Powell Frith (1819-1909)

Photo Credit: The Fitzwilliam Museum [CC BY-NC-ND]

An actor’s automatic license to fake an accent is now increasingly in doubt. Casting agents are under growing pressure to find talent that matches the background of a character if they want to avoid accusations of cultural appropriation, or even, in some cases the charge of outright mockery.

“I feel the days when English-speaking actors put on accents and told the world they were Russian or German or Swedish or Italian – those days are gone,” Ralph Fiennes (pictured) said, explaining why he had largely cast Russian actors in The White Crow. “One has read quite a lot of critical responses to films that are still doing that. The landscape has shifted.”

Fiennes defensive position follows fresh demands for greater authenticity on screen. Whether driven by a wish to create more work for disabled actors, ethnic minorities and transgender performers, or perhaps by a more sophisticated awareness among viewers since the international cinema and box-set boom, there is a powerful new imperative in the acting profession: keep it real.

Such concerns found voice in Wales late last year when several well-known actors, including Rhys Ifans called on the National Theatre of Wales to prioritise native talent instead of bringing in English actors.

…But, elsewhere, performers and directors are pushing back against calls for authentic casting. “Nobody who has talent should be kept out of the acting profession. And nobody, even white middle-class males should be prevented from playing any part,” said Simon Callow.

…Michael Coveney, the veteran theatre critic, bemoans the escalation of creative limitations. Citing Laurence Olivier’s Othello at the National Theatre in 1964 – this interpretation was rendered in black makeup – a practice that would be considered irredeemably offensive nowadays – and yet was “still the greatest performance in anything” Coveney thinks he has seen.

(The Observer, 2019)

Shouldn’t talent should be the principle – not gender, race or “cultural appropriation.”?

*The actor Laurence Fox gave The Times an insight the other day into why so many actors become “self-involved little pricks” when he reflected on how “people walk you from your trailer to the make-up truck, in case you’re too busy worrying about how famous you are today to find it yourself” and “send a car to drive you to work in case you get lost because you were thinking about Hamlet.”

 (The Times, 2019)


Fashion

Dressing for the Masquerade, 

Thomas Rowlandson (1757-1827)

Photo Credit: The Henry Barber Trust, The Barber Institute Of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham

[CC BY-NC-ND]

… An industry once known as facile has undergone a Damascene conversion. Doing good is hot right now. Nevertheless, to have dedicated the September edition, [Vogue] an issue typically associated with blockbuster new trends and the kerching of commercial obligation, to a subject as wholesome as kindness speaks volumes about where fashion is at right now.

In recent years the industry has had to reconcile itself to some uncomfortable truths – such as the fact it’s horribly polluting, or that it preys on young people’s vulnerabilities and low self-esteem, and that it can be elitist, and racist, and mean. Just as its sins have been made ever more apparent so has its value as a social platform become more keen. The global fashion industry is worth some $2.5 trn (£1.6trn).

It has influence. And brands, editors, stylists and creatives are waking up to the fact that compassion can have commercial perks. In a climate in which we wear our hearts (and logos) on our sleeves, the brand that stands for “kindness” or “sustainability” has more power.

… And yes. It could be hokum. Cynics will say that these initiatives are mere lip service in an industry that still venerates 18-year-old body shapes and charges fortunes for clothes.

(The i. 5.8.2019)

Don’t businesses adapt to the prevailing trends. If “doing good” will increase the profit of the company then it will “do good”. Wasn’t the same kind of campaign instigated by Gillette not so long ago? Didn’t it associate with “positive masculinity” and the “MeToo movement”?  

The Royals

The Magic Circle,

 John William Waterhouse (1849-1917)

Photo Credit: Tate [CC BY-NC-ND]

In every generation the royal family must pull off an extraordinary trick: convincing citizens in a democracy it needs an institution whose phenomenal wealth and influence is predicated upon a quirk of birth.

…For a long time, a “bicycling monarchy” was mooted as a model for our own royals. Surely, unburdened of their palaces and ceremonial trappings, mixing with the populace in a semblance of normality like their Dutch or Swedish cousins, our royals would not only better reflect our egalitarian age, but be happier. Yet the Duchess of Cambridge will not, unlike Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, need to pick her kids up from kindergarten in a cargo bike anytime soon.

Instead, the House of Windsor is transitioning into the Davos Dynasty. In conversation with Sir David Attenborough in January, Prince William fitted in perfectly with the laid-back, dress-down plutocrats who preach social justice from £3,000-a-night Swiss mountaintop suites, espouse philanthropy while recoiling at any mention of tax.

…At the WE event, Prince Harry said that climate change is “not political but humanitarian”: saving the planet will not require redistribution from rich to poorer nations, it won’t subvert the world order. It’s about people, about caring, or at least saying that you do.

…Now his wife has introduced him to the values of modern celebrity, that you can justify private jet jaunts and £2,000 coats by being “inspirational” with the “clean” food you eat, the blessed hashtag you type on an Instagram post, or the messages you write on bananas for prostitutes. The unimpeachable new royals can retain their ancestral power and all the world’s material blessings along with virtue too.

(Janice Turner, The Times, 2019)


*I get a little exercised when I see the Duchess of Cambridge described as “thrifty” for wearing an outfit worth several hundred pounds more than once. But Prince Charles has just been photographed in a pair of Vilebrequin swimming trunks that he first wore at least twelve years ago. “Probably 16,” says a spokesperson for Vilebrequin, “because this particular style went on sale in 2003 and designs tend not to stick around beyond a season.” The trunks retail at £195 (leaving inflation out of it, this equates to £12 a year of ownership, so you will have to decide if their longevity amounts to thrift.

(Paula Cocozza, The Guardian, 2019)

Good on you Charles. Did you buy the trunks in bulk?